diadoc_map

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral details about what happens with no arguments versus with an entity argument, and frames the output as a map or method listing. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences deliver the purpose, usage patterns, and when to use the tool. The phrasing is efficient and front-loaded with the core idea ('The big picture'), and every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple optional-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers what it does, how to invoke it, and when to reach for it. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema only defines 'entity' as a string with a default, providing zero description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining that omitting it shows the whole map and passing values like 'reviews' or 'stocks' lists methods for that entity. This gives the agent actionable meaning for the parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states what the tool does: it provides a map of business entities and their go-to methods. It also explains the two calling modes (no args for the whole map, entity argument for a single entity's methods), which distinguishes it from siblings like diadoc_search_methods or diadoc_describe_method.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to use this tool before guessing and explains how to call it with or without the entity parameter. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the orientation purpose is clear enough that an agent can select it appropriately among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.